| 1 |
>>>>> On Tue, 17 Dec 2013, Alexander Berntsen wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> While I agree with you about both reasons, I disagree about what we |
| 4 |
>> should do about it. IMHO, changing the license of the existing |
| 5 |
>> GLEPs that are marked public domain is not worth the effort. |
| 6 |
> There must be some sort of effort that I do not understand. It seems |
| 7 |
> quite simple to me. Could you elaborate? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Well, if it's simple, then we have no reason to change it, in the |
| 10 |
first place. ;-) |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
However, in your previous posting you made the point that public |
| 13 |
domain isn't so simple, and indeed in some legislations (e.g. |
| 14 |
"Urheberrecht" in Germany) it is not possible to give up author's |
| 15 |
rights. In this case the authors would retain at least some of their |
| 16 |
rights (depending on their country), and we would have to ask them |
| 17 |
about licensing the GLEP under CC-BY-SA. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
While the current situation with GLEPs labelled as PD may not be 100% |
| 20 |
clean, simply relabelling them as CC-BY-SA (without asking authors) |
| 21 |
won't help rectifying it, and asking them would obviously require some |
| 22 |
effort. So I'd just leave things as they are. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Ulrich |
Archives